Re: [ga] OBJECTION Re: Transfer TF elections

[Alexander Svensson <alexander@svensson.de>]

Thomas Roessler wrote on 11.12.01, 22:39:02:
> This kind of change of rules is inappropriate at this point of time
> (i.e., when the election is almost started).  Instead of changing
> the meaning of a candidature and a vote at this point of time, the
> GA membership should either be given an opportunity to decide on
> this question by vote, too, or the vote should happen by the rules
> which were to be expected from Danny's original announcement.

I just looked in the archives, and Danny indeed
announced on 2001-12-05:
  If no one else volunteers for that position, I will 
  appoint Jeff Williams as the GA representative in 
  one week's time. 

/The/ representative means one person. If it had been
known before the end of the (quasi-) nomination phase that 
one voting GA representative *and* two non-voting GA
representatives were to be selected, we might have seen 
more than three volunteers. 

Danny explained in his 2001-12-11 posting that the
expansion is due to an un-ratified proposal within the
Task Force. While I understand that he wants to act as
quickly as possible, it must be clear at the outset
and /before/ the nomination process *how many* people
(and how many of them with voting rights) are to be
selected.

To move forward:

a) We could stick to the original proposal and take
   a vote for *one* candidate. That is a quick way
   to solve it, but if there should be additional 
   vacancies, we would need to take another vote.
   (This seems to depend on the TF, right?)

b) We could extend the nomination phase and see if
   there are additional candidates under these new
   circumstances. This is a clear-cut solution, but
   it would leave the GA unrepresented while the 
   nomination is extended (and the holidays are
   approaching, too).

c) We could take a double vote in one (if that is
   technically feasible): 
   GA voters could rank the current candidates 
   (Jeff, Eric, Thomas) and then choose whether
   they want to send the first, the top 2 or top 3.
   If a majority wants to send all 3, all 3 will
   become GA representatives, while the first is
   the voting representative.
   But I'm afraid it would be a somewhat confusing
   ballot. ;) Perhaps someone can improve it?

I understand that Danny wants to commend those who 
step forward to work in the Task Force. But this
cannot mean that everyone volunteering is guaranteed
a place as representative (voting or non-voting) --
the rules must be set out clearly before the whole
thing starts.

Personally, I would prefer a) to c) to b).

Best regards,
/// Alexander
--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html